I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Simon

  Yeah, only theists think in absolute truths. For science, everything is open to question, even if it seems decided beyond all doubt - who knows what new discovery will enhance our understanding?

  That's why evolution is a theory ... as is gravity, because we know we don't know everything about it yet. But I know I'm not going to float off into space anytime soon.

  The trouble is the conflation with the layman's use of the world 'theory' which usually equates to a guess. The irony being that religious belief is almost completely guesswork or wishful thinking and fits the lay term "theory" better.
• 

  Landy

  Again for the like 5th time. I neither accept wholly Creation or Evolution. NEITHER. why because yes I want to know what kicked off those amino acids caused chaining of DNA. I can't be more clear

  Again, no one has an issue with you believing in God or not believing in God - that's your right.

  What people here, or anyone with an ounce of scientific knowledge, object to is you inserting God into the equation simply because you don't understand something.
  

  
  
  
• 

  prologos

  the word logic should not be part of 'theology' so, it is even below the norm of a theory, whereas the evolution, ongoing development of life seems logical, the process has followed a great path, the starting conditions must have made it possible.
• 

  Viviane

  If you want to ignore the issue of RNA to DNA then you simply don't want to accept the fact that Evolution like Creation cannot be proven.
  I get it you don't want to address this very key issue because there's no answer hence it frustrates you and your firm belief of Evolution, probably because you don't like hearing that it is only a theory.

  Viv's Law in action. You confuse evolution with the origin of life, misuse theory again, say you have no position and then clearly lay one out and create your very own strawman (twice) to argue against.

  Evolution is both a fact and a theory. In science, a theory is the best current explanation of something supported by multiple lines of evidence, experiment and observation. You are using that word in the sense of "hypothesis" which it surely isn't.

  You're showing you're completely unequipped to have any sort of meaningful discussion on the topic.

  Cofty offered to discuss RNA and DNA with you, yet you pretend no one would. Why?

  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  I agree with this viv

  Evolution is both a fact and a theory. In science, a theory is the best current explanation of something supported by multiple lines of evidence, experiment and observation.

  I so agree with this above

  and as you seem to have set y ourself up as a kind of referee I will say that if cofty wants to discuss this below I'm up for it
  

  Cofty offered to discuss RNA and DNA with you,
  

  but we would need to step out of the world of chemistry for a short while and take a short walk in the world of viruses, mutations and the stability of DNA over RNA. I'm not sure if Katie wants to go there as she has expressly focused on chemistry. but Hadriel may be up for a change of topic as he is interested in this part of the subject? a big problem for me is if people start going to extremes insulting one another. as far as I am concerned it is perfectly logical that an individual may say God did it so I do object to overly insulting insults.

  edit: oh and another thing - please put your research into everyday language if possible as there is a lot of work being done in these fields and some of it is subject to debate and controversy
• 

  cofty

  Cofty offered to discuss RNA and DNA with you, yet you pretend no one would. Why?

  ^^^ This ^^^

  If I understand Prologos correctly he is one of the very few who hold a position that is consistent with science and faith.He makes the minimal claim that a "creator" set the starting conditions that began the process of unguided evolution. It is the same position as scientists such as Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins. I have theological objections to it - regarding suffering for example - but it is not anti-scientific.
• 

  Caedes

  Confused by the "America" comment one given that many around the world clamor to attend Harvard, Berkley, Stanford, Yale among others every year.

  You do like to go off on a tangent, the point is that most universities around the world don't have to make such statements because they don't have to pander to a highly superstitious populace.

  I have never claimed that students around the world aren't keen to get into those universities.

  Americans first to land on moon, created the internet, source of most technological advances today, Russia a close second.

  Again I have never claimed otherwise.

  This isn't about patriotism but to act as though U.S. schools are somehow not credited or to demean their statements is well...ignorant.

  Unfortunately America does have a lot of non-accredited 'universities' but the ones you have mentioned are not among them. But i'm not sure why you bring this up as I have never suggested that the university you mentioned was non-accredited.

  So finally we get to something I did actually mention (congratulations) although of course your choice of epithet is inappropriate since clearly I am not ignorant of the subject matter, I would have gone with perhaps disparaging or censorious.
• 

  prologos

  cofty: "--- regarding suffering--

  suffering is a fact of life, so must be a valuable part of the successful evolution process. example: effort, like flight for example hurts, so birds find ways to minimize drag, fly in v-formations, Pain might be a way to offer aching members of your species to predators, in preference to your young. In balance by being alive and sharing the glory of life, you must inflict pain on your surroundings you live off, so, don't complain, think of the contribution you make to the development of the great life experience Our guidance in biological development, pain abatement fits right in.
  
  
• 

  Hadriel

  1. Show me where I said "a theory" is a guess. In fact I said the opposite several posts back.

  2. Show me where I "inserted" God in any of my posts. What I'm inserting is I don't know because we simply do not know "the charge" which caused DNA.

  If you know what the charge is that caused RNA to become DNA again you'll get a Nobel Prize.

  Not one person here has had a single prolific thing to say about this problem. Instead the de facto go to answer is to keep saying I'm inserting God when it has ZERO to do with that for me. Along with a bunch of other rhetoric that I never said.

  No matter how many times I say it I see the same post over and over.

  Now for the last time until someone shows me evidence of how RNA became DNA I don't know if it is Evolution (life by chance), God (life by supreme being) or a Leprechaun (life by little green guy from planet three solar systems away).

  I get it you want me to accept well it just happened somehow but don't worry about that. No thanks!

  I get that it angers you because you can't explain this process any more than anyone else. It is what it is. Maybe someone day we'll know until then I personally can't accept any final resolution.
• 

  Hadriel

  Cofty offered to discuss RNA and DNA with you, yet you pretend no one would. Why?

  I didn't see a discussion on the matter only links some of which I have already consumed.